Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter"...

[tco]

On average, the students at Harvard (or insert any other "top school" here) are better than the students at my institution. However, we all know that we can't apply statistics to individuals...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yellowfish]

Case in point: Step 1 averages:
Harvard 239
Temple 228

(typical SD is 15-25 points)

So, roughly, the bottom third at Harvard would be below average at Temple in terms of Step 1 score. Conversely, the top third at Temple would be above average at Harvard.

This is why residency programs care about class rank and AOA more than the name of your school.

I know you didn't say anything to this effect, but just in case anyone believes that Step 1 or any other test is actually anywhere close to a halfway decent measure of the intelligence of an individual or that an aggregate is an accurate measure of the intelligence of a class, that would be a completely flawed assumption. The Step 1 would actually be a much worse measure of this than the MCAT, even.

All medical students are incredibly bright. From what I've observed, 1) people are smart (and not so smart) in many different ways and 2) people in general are way too obsessed with the notion of "intelligence" - there is much less conversation about characteristics that are magnitudes more important, like deliverables, capabilities, and performance.

 

[KinasePro]

I know you didn't say anything to this effect, but just in case anyone believes that Step 1 or any other test is actually anywhere close to a halfway decent measure of the intelligence of an individual or that an aggregate is an accurate measure of the intelligence of a class, that would be a completely flawed assumption. The Step 1 would actually be a much worse measure of this than the MCAT, even.

That's a bold statement. Have any evidence?

I think a lot of program director's disagree with you, btw.

 

[yellowfish]

That's a bold statement. Have any evidence?

I think a lot of program director's disagree with you, btw.

I don't have evidence (nobody has any significant evidence) but I have rationale.

Program directors don't disagree with me - they, however, are looking for competent residents, not necessarily the "smartest" people. I never said the Step 1 isn't capable of measuring preparedness for residency, only that it doesn't measure intelligence. Which it certainly does not.

Just a couple of the many, many justifications that I could pull out are that 1) different students will put different amounts of effort into the Step 1 depending on their goals and that 2) different curriculums are either more or less tailored to the Step 1 and demand more or less time, diverting attention away from Step 1 dedicated studying. In general, these effects would be less pronounced with regards to MCAT preparation whereas the MCAT also requires more synthesis/application of information to new settings, which is the principle of my second claim.

 

[KinasePro]

I don't have evidence (nobody has any significant evidence) but I have rationale.

Program directors don't disagree with me - they, however, are looking for competent residents, not necessarily the "smartest" people. I never said the Step 1 isn't capable of measuring preparedness for residency, only that it doesn't measure intelligence. Which it certainly does not.

Just a couple of the many, many justifications that I could pull out are that 1) different students will put different amounts of effort into the Step 1 depending on their goals and that 2) different curriculums are either more or less tailored to the Step 1 and demand more or less time, diverting attention away from Step 1 dedicated studying. In general, these effects would be less pronounced with regards to MCAT preparation whereas the MCAT also requires more synthesis/application of information to new settings, which is the principle of my second claim.

Meh, those are simply variables that go into one's performance on step 1. Just because these variables vary by institution doesn't invalidate step 1 as a tool for assessing intelligence. Obviously it's not the perfect tool, but it's not as useless as you're paining it IMO.

If you talk to program director's, you'll find that they generally equate step 1 scores with intelligence and clinical grades with interpersonal skills. Gross generalization of course, but I've heard multiple PD's make statements to this effect.

 

[yellowfish]

Meh, those are simply variables that go into one's performance on step 1. Just because these variables vary by institution doesn't invalidate step 1 as a tool for assessing intelligence. Obviously it's not the perfect tool, but it's not as useless as you're paining it IMO.

It's essentially useless to assess intelligence.

I'm not sure what your definition of intelligence is, but it's definitely not the same as mine, and I would never use a tool with no validity for a measure and try to extrapolate some meaningful information from that tool.

 

[cbrons]

Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter" than those at lesser known schools?

no

 

[KinasePro]

It's essentially useless to assess intelligence.

I'm not sure what your definition of intelligence is, but it's definitely not the same as mine, and I would never use a tool with no validity for a measure and try to extrapolate some meaningful information from that tool.

There are studies validating step 1 as a predictor of residency performance, which is decent a proxy for intelligence. So saying it has "no validity" is simply not true. There's also, you know, a nation of program directors interpreting the exam as a direct proxy for intelligence, too.

 

[yellowfish]

There are studies validating step 1 as a predictor of residency performance, which is decent a proxy for intelligence. So saying it has "no validity" is simply not true. There's also, you know, a nation of program directors interpreting the exam as a direct proxy for intelligence, too.

Of course, you being the official spokesperson for them.

This is your quote, by the way:

Step 1 average is more a reflection of individual student motivation & effort than anything the school can provide. This most likely means that more students at Dartmouth & Baylor are hoping to specialize than students at UCSF, for example.

Notice how you didn't mention intelligence of the students at the institutions?

Taking the test clearly necessitates some brain function, but there are a hundred different variables that go into the ultimate score on the test, and intelligence is only one. I completely stand by my original statement that it is NOT a decent measure of intelligence. It is OK if you disagree, it merely means we have very disparate fundamental definitions.

 

[KinasePro]

Of course, you being the official spokesperson for them.

This is your quote, by the way:

Notice how you didn't mention intelligence of the students at the institutions?

Taking the test clearly necessitates some brain function, but there are a hundred different variables that go into the ultimate score on the test, and intelligence is only one. I completely stand by my original statement that it is NOT a decent measure of intelligence. It is OK if you disagree, it merely means we have very disparate fundamental definitions.

The quote is a non sequitur. We already agree that there are a lot of variables that go into a step 1 score. I just disagree with your assertion that its a worthless test, as does your future residency program. Don't take my word for it though, go talk to some of your home program directors and see for yourself.

 

[GadRads]

I agree with you. The MCAT is probably closer to measuring quick analytical "intelligence" than Step 1, but even then it is not so good.You can score 24 on the MCAT and score 235+ on Step 1. I personally know someone who scored 26 on the MCAT but made a 247. The reverse also happens--30+ MCATers not breaking 230. Step 1 is a test of hard work, knowledge and making associations.

Standardized tests have their use, but it is silly to make assessments of someone's raw intelligence based on scores derived from them.

Of course, you being the official spokesperson for them.

This is your quote, by the way:



Notice how you didn't mention intelligence of the students at the institutions?

Taking the test clearly necessitates some brain function, but there are a hundred different variables that go into the ultimate score on the test, and intelligence is only one. I completely stand by my original statement that it is NOT a decent measure of intelligence. It is OK if you disagree, it merely means we have very disparate fundamental definitions.

 

[IonClaws]

Standardized tests have their use, but it is silly to make assessments of someone's raw intelligence based on scores derived from them.

I've always wondered whether there really is such a thing as "raw" or "general" intelligence. It seems like it would be impossible to measure due to the inherent limitations of testing.

 

[IlDestriero]

Yes.

 

[GadRads]

I've always wondered whether there really is such a thing as "raw" or "general" intelligence. It seems like it would be impossible to measure due to the inherent limitations of testing.

Nobody really knows, but there is something to be said about precocious individuals e.g. Sho Yano, but they are about 0.000000001% of the population.

 

[Southplains]

I never said the Step 1 isn't capable of measuring preparedness for residency, only that it doesn't measure intelligence. Which it certainly does not.

+1

Step 1 is not and was not designed to measure intelligence but rather someone's preparedness for clinical rotations. Of course intelligence is one, typically large, factor influencing exam scores, but that does not make it an IQ test.

That being said yes I believe the average student at a top school is more intelligent/has been more productive than the average student at a StateU SOM.

 

[IonClaws]

Nobody really knows, but there is something to be said about precocious individuals e.g. Sho Yano, but they are about 0.000000001% of the population.

Certainly Dr. Yano is an exceptional prodigy in multiple areas, but the most accurate (in my opinion) explanation would be that he is simply profoundly gifted in those areas rather than the blanket statement of "he'z a jeeniussszz!!11!!1" I think as these areas begin to overlap in terms of what attributes make one "good" at them, people tend to overlook the complexity of talents and simplify the observations into the myth of a "general" intelligence. Not that that makes him or anyone else any less talented or worthwhile, it's just that there probably isn't a "general" intelligence given how complex the human brain is.

 

[NYCNative]

OP, people at top tier schools aren't smarter than people at lower tier scores because everyone is equally intelligent. Some of us just test better than others, but those tests are completely meaningless because they only measure one's knowledge of the information presented on that one particular test. That's why it's all about test prep. If you took a kid who scored a 1050 on the SAT I and put him through a few Kaplan classes, he would also score a 1560, just like all those upper middle class kids whose parents are smarty-pants doctors and lawyers and can afford that stuff. Because we all have equal levels of intelligence, see? Oh, and even if you wanted to make the argument that test taking is a particular kind of variable intelligence, among several others, that'd be OK, too. Because guess what? There's a natural law that says that the kid without test taking intelligence will have tons of emotional and other types of intelligence to swing the balance back to the equal intelligence level. Intelligence is really complicated but somehow we all wind up with the same amount. A corollary to this rule that the farther "below average" a student's MCAT score, the MORE AMAZING his ECs become. So now you can understand the importance of holistic review.

 

[Wordead]

Everybody is equally intelligent....right....

 

[IlDestriero]

Everybody is equally intelligent....right....

That made me LOL as well.

 

[Kinch]

OP, people at top tier schools aren't smarter than people at lower tier scores because everyone is equally intelligent. Some of us just test better than others, but those tests are completely meaningless because they only measure one's knowledge of the information presented on that one particular test. That's why it's all about test prep. If you took a kid who scored a 1050 on the SAT I and put him through a few Kaplan classes, he would also score a 1560, just like all those upper middle class kids whose parents are smarty-pants doctors and lawyers and can afford that stuff. Because we all have equal levels of intelligence, see? Oh, and even if you wanted to make the argument that test taking is a particular kind of variable intelligence, among several others, that'd be OK, too. Because guess what? There's a natural law that says that the kid without test taking intelligence will have tons of emotional and other types of intelligence to swing the balance back to the equal intelligence level. Intelligence is really complicated but somehow we all wind up with the same amount. A corollary to this rule that the farther "below average" a student's MCAT score, the MORE AMAZING his ECs become. So now you can understand the importance of holistic review.

 

[Crim1]

I'm attending the cheapest medical school I was accepted to, which happens to be a state school. I would argue that people who don't are not very smart considering the market value of the MD degree is the same and that no specialty or career path is closed to me having made this choice. However, some people make choices for emotional reasons. This conversation is stupid.

 

[Wordead]

I'm attending the cheapest medical school I was accepted to, which happens to be a state school. I would argue that people who don't are not very smart considering the market value of the MD degree is the same and that no specialty or career path is closed to me having made this choice. However, some people make choices for emotional reasons. This conversation is stupid.

Lol you really think the market value of a Harvard degree is equal to random state university?

 

[Textbookversion]

Lol you really think the market value of a Harvard degree is equal to random state university?

Yes? Duh? Do you really think when the local ortho group is hiring they go OMG YOU WENT TO HARVARD HERE IS AN EXTRA 100k SALARY.

 

[yehhhboiii]

Yes? Duh? Do you really think when the local ortho group is hiring they go OMG YOU WENT TO HARVARD HERE IS AN EXTRA 100k SALARY.

harvard will probably make it easier to get to that ortho group in the first place
pedigree, prestige, networking, etc.

 

[IlDestriero]

Your residency and/or fellowship is/are more important, but one leads to the next and to the next.
The PDs acknowledge the quality of your medical school is a factor in section. It matters.
The great PP groups won't say "here's an extra $100k", but they might say "here's the job offer".
Networking matters. Any dunce can get a job, you want the great job.

 

[Wordead]

Yes? Duh? Do you really think when the local ortho group is hiring they go OMG YOU WENT TO HARVARD HERE IS AN EXTRA 100k SALARY.

The groups that pay better are going to hire the people that went to better schools. Duh.

 

[pre med 2014]

How about a 3rd question to add to this: Are MDs smarter than DOs???

 

[notbobtrustme]

Lol you really think the market value of a Harvard degree is equal to random state university?

I'd argue that it's less considering that Harvard opens many more doors to academic medicine, which pays less than private practice. The prestige may be higher, but going on that academic track will be a loss financially compared to bum**** U MDs going into private practice.

 

[IlDestriero]

I'd argue that it's less considering that Harvard opens many more doors to academic medicine, which pays less than private practice. The prestige may be higher, but going on that academic track will be a loss financially compared to bum**** U MDs going into private practice.

Not always.
Though if you want 90th+ percentile income you likely have to be the Chairman.

 

[touchpause13]

How about a 3rd question to add to this: Are MDs smarter than DOs???

 

[Brain Bucket]

Yes, yes, and for the third time, yes.

 

[Wordead]

I'd argue that it's less considering that Harvard opens many more doors to academic medicine, which pays less than private practice. The prestige may be higher, but going on that academic track will be a loss financially compared to bum**** U MDs going into private practice.

Because Harvard docs can't go into private practice, and PP groups don't want Harvard docs?

 

[notbobtrustme]

Because Harvard docs can't go into private practice, and PP groups don't want Harvard docs?

Of course they do. However, just having that door open can lead people walking through it when it would otherwise be closed to them.

 

[Wordead]

Of course they do. However, just having that door open can lead people walking through it when it would otherwise be closed to them.

So market value of a Harvard degree is lower because they have more doors open to them. Seems legit.

 

[CherryRedDracul]

So market value of a Harvard degree is lower because they have more doors open to them. Seems legit.

If anything, having more options is something that would increase market value.

 

[yehhhboiii]

So market value of a Harvard degree is lower because they have more doors open to them. Seems legit.

i think he's saying that pedigree is very important in academia so if you're graduating from a well known school that grooms people to be high powered researchers or future department chairs they could end up making less than they would if they went into private practice

 

[IlDestriero]

I'm in academics and I make more than many in my field. And by many I mean about 1/2, depending on the survey you look at. Don't always assume academic medicine is a financial dead end. And I'm not including my "Cadillac" benefits, low call, admin days, etc.

 

[Wordead]

i think he's saying that pedigree is very important in academia so if you're graduating from a well known school that grooms people to be high powered researchers or future department chairs they could end up making less than they would if they went into private practice

Which is completely wrong logic. A Harvard grad that WANTS to go into private practice is going to be more marketable to patients and going to have more groups looking to hire them, and offering them better compensation packages.

 

[Double A]

i didn't read the replies, but i think the top students at all schools are comparable. it's the distribution after that that differs between schools.

 

[yehhhboiii]

i didn't read the replies, but i think the top students at all schools are comparable. it's the distribution after that that differs between schools.

i can buy this

 

[crispatela]

yes

Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter" than those at lesser known schools? For example, do you agree with the statement, "students at Harvard are much smarter than students at Temple?"

I was having a debate about this with my friend and we had some disagreements. Just wanted to find out what SDN population thinks about this.

If you agree or do not agree, state why.

ALSO,
What about this 2nd Q:
Do you feel that the students at the "better" known schools feel SUPERIOR to those at the lesser known school?

 

[schizosquirrel]

It depends on what you're defining "smart" as. If you mean having medical knowledge and being a good resident/physician, then no. I think medical school (regardless of institution) prepares you well enough to have the tools and knowledge to move on to residency and be competent.

People at higher ranked schools tend to be more the type to better be able to balance many things though (pre-clin knowledge, clinics, research, activities, etc.) and tend to be the people who actually want to do these things as part of their careers (i.e. become faculty somewhere, do more than be a private practice physician). That's of course not to say there aren't people like that any even low ranked schools, it's just more the norm at a top school. In other words, top schools have a lot of resources and want to pick students who will use them.

I've heard grumblings from residency directors though that the advantage of taking an applicant from a top school is that much of the weeding process has already been conducted (in other words, you'll be pretty sure they'll be great if they were able to get into said school and then perform reasonably well there). On the other hand, some lower ranked schools have more variability in the quality of individuals. It's not as if the top students are any less as great as a student at a top school, but the bottom students may be.

From the student perspective, going to a top school means there's a little bit less of a worry to perform at the top of your xlaA, because most residency directors pretty much assume everyone is great who comes from that institution and there is less of a need to select only the "top" students. I think it takes a little bit of the pressure away from third year rotations and certainly pre-clin years.

 

[studentp0x]

On average, probably yeah. But how are you gauging this intelligence? Just in terms of "book smart"? Then yeah probably.
Or applying it to real clinical scenarios in practice? In which case, it gets more tricky. I'd bet anything that anyone capable of a ~32+ and 3.7+ has the "needed" intelligence to have top clinical skills. And by that I mean, your 36/3.97 guy is not necessarily going to be better than a 3.7/32 when it comes down to actual clinical skills and judgement. I do remember reading about an incompetent neurosurgeon who was the typical "4.0/40+" type of student. And then there are the extremely skilled doctors who come from an average undergrad/medical school.

 

[ulikedaggers]

On average, the students at Harvard (or insert any other "top school" here) are better than the students at my institution. However, we all know that we can't apply statistics to individuals...

On average, yes. For the record, I'm a student at an unranked/non-ranked (whichever one isn't good enough to be ranked.. not the one that chooses not to be ranked). They were smarter in the sense that they made better decisions in undergrad (studied to get better grades, did research, studied more for MCAT, etc). Are they necessarily more intelligent? Probably not.

 

[Kahreek]

they have more confidence and are more assertive(aggressive?) at displaying knowledge. Will that make them better doctors? maybe

In before flames.